It was made legal by the CA courts, then a ballot resolution was passed that made it illegal which is then being challenged as un-(state)-constitutional and it's tied up back in the courts. The pro-SSM folks won the first case and then won a case in which the anti-SSM people tried to get the first case thrown out.

It was made legal by the CA courts, then a ballot resolution was passed that made it illegal which is then being challenged as un-(state)-constitutional and it's tied up back in the courts. The pro-SSM folks won the first case and then won a case in which the anti-SSM people tried to get the first case thrown out.

Such a waste of money. There should be one case to determine it all, one way or the other. It doesn't make sense to have 6 states allow SSM then wasting time and money debating the same topic in other states. At this rate, all 50 states will allow it, but at an incredibly slow rate.

One case, that's it. Want to appeal it? Fine? Just not 50 different states doing it 50+ different times.

Marriage is largely a state's issue, which is why different states have different rules on marriage licenses or whether you can marry your first cousin and things like that. Barring a US Supreme Court ruling on the overall constitutionality of SSM bans, it's going to continue to be handled on a state level. The federal Defense of Marriage Act applies to the requirements for federal marriage benefits but doesn't stop states from declaring any two people married, just whether or not the federal government will find them eligible.

On the plus side, its certainly possible that the CA case will eventually be appealed to the US Supreme Court. I think they've declined to hear previous rulings on the matter but this could be one they pick up.

Marriage is largely a state's issue, which is why different states have different rules on marriage licenses or whether you can marry your first cousin and things like that. Barring a US Supreme Court ruling on the overall constitutionality of SSM bans, it's going to continue to be handled on a state level. The federal Defense of Marriage Act applies to the requirements for federal marriage benefits but doesn't stop states from declaring any two people married, just whether or not the federal government will find them eligible.

On the plus side, its certainly possible that the CA case will eventually be appealed to the US Supreme Court. I think they've declined to hear previous rulings on the matter but this could be one they pick up.

I realize it's a state issue, I just think it's a waste of time and money. If you can get married at the age of 16 in one state, then you should be able to get married at the age of 16 in another state.

I can understand some differences among states, but I think major things such as age and *** should be decided at the national level.

Besides, the point that there should only be one case and then no more is f*cking retarded if you want to maintain a democratic system. MANY of our current laws, that we take to be natural and obvious necessities of our society, were defeated in courts many times before going into effect. And some foul laws need to be challenged in courts multiple times before they are overturned.

Besides, the point that there should only be one case and then no more is f*cking retarded if you want to maintain a democratic system. MANY of our current laws, that we take to be natural and obvious necessities of our society, were defeated in courts many times before going into effect. And some foul laws need to be challenged in courts multiple times before they are overturned.

It's the nature of a democratic system.

Almaieque wrote:

One case, that's it. Want to appeal it? Fine? Just not 50 different states doing it 50+ different times.

First of all, there's no chance for a federal bill mandating same *** marriage until you get enough support for it, and if you can't even get those bills passed in their states, there's no chance in **** it is passing in the federal gov't. ALL movements start small, start local, and then move up. They have to, there's no other outlet.

Furthermore, you can't even get a case tried in the federal gov't until it has moved up from the state system, realistically.

Plus, having only one case just increases the chance of injustice occurring in the long run. Cases need to be evaluated multiple times, over time. In 1950, it was considered obvious that women shouldn't be able to vote, for instance. Had there been only one trial then, they would not have been granted suffrage.

Plus, having only one case just increases the chance of injustice occurring in the long run. Cases need to be evaluated multiple times, over time. In 1950, it was considered obvious that women shouldn't be able to vote, for instance. Had there been only one trial then, they would not have been granted suffrage.

If one MAJOR case consists of 2-3 small cases underneath the umbrella of that one case, then that still consists of one MAJOR case. My point is that 50 different states shouldn't have to REPEAT the same process for the same result.

Idiggory wrote:

Plus, having only one case just increases the chance of injustice occurring in the long run. Cases need to be evaluated multiple times, over time. In 1950, it was considered obvious that women shouldn't be able to vote, for instance. Had there been only one trial then, they would not have been granted suffrage.

Almalieque wrote:

One case, that's it. Want to appeal it? Fine? Just not 50 different states doing it 50+ different times.

And yet you fail to see that having state movements is integral to the fair evaluation of a federal bill.

Or that all these different states come to different conclusions about the constitutionality of SSM, which suggests that a single case in the federal gov't would be appealed so much that it would be useless right now anyway.

And yet you fail to see that having state movements is integral to the fair evaluation of a federal bill.

Or that all these different states come to different conclusions about the constitutionality of SSM, which suggests that a single case in the federal gov't would be appealed so much that it would be useless right now anyway.

My point is that it shouldn't be that way...doing so is wasting time. Each state can participate if they want, but it should done all at once. You know, kind of how we vote for presidents. We don't need to undergo various different court sessions over a series of years and decades. If it's ok for NY, then it's ok for CA.

And yet you fail to see that having state movements is integral to the fair evaluation of a federal bill.

Or that all these different states come to different conclusions about the constitutionality of SSM, which suggests that a single case in the federal gov't would be appealed so much that it would be useless right now anyway.

My point is that it shouldn't be that way...doing so is wasting time. Each state can participate if they want, but it should done all at once. You know, kind of how we vote for presidents. We don't need to undergo various different court sessions over a series of years and decades. If it's ok for NY, then it's ok for CA.

I think I see what you're saying, and I think I agree with you, but if I'm interpreting you correctly, then you're arguing that we should take the decision away from the states and make it a federal type dealy thingy.

And yet you fail to see that having state movements is integral to the fair evaluation of a federal bill.

Or that all these different states come to different conclusions about the constitutionality of SSM, which suggests that a single case in the federal gov't would be appealed so much that it would be useless right now anyway.

My point is that it shouldn't be that way...doing so is wasting time. Each state can participate if they want, but it should done all at once. You know, kind of how we vote for presidents. We don't need to undergo various different court sessions over a series of years and decades. If it's ok for NY, then it's ok for CA.

I think I see what you're saying, and I think I agree with you, but if I'm interpreting you correctly, then you're arguing that we should take the decision away from the states and make it a federal type dealy thingy.

When is it ok for the federal government to do that, and when isn't it? I think it's better for each state to decide it, and once there's a majority of states already allowing something, then bring it up federally. One case to rule them all though is kinda of dangerous.

When is it ok for the federal government to do that, and when isn't it? I think it's better for each state to decide it, and once there's a majority of states already allowing something, then bring it up federally. One case to rule them all though is kinda of dangerous.

Personally, I think it should be the same across the board, and the states shouldn't be allowed to discriminate that way. When you've got each state deciding, then you've got marriages that are valid in some places and not in others. It's great that these guys can get married in NY, but if they come to Tennessee, they're just another bunch of homos who have no rights and their marriage is invalid. That's ****** up.

When is it ok for the federal government to do that, and when isn't it? I think it's better for each state to decide it, and once there's a majority of states already allowing something, then bring it up federally. One case to rule them all though is kinda of dangerous.

Personally, I think it should be the same across the board, and the states shouldn't be allowed to discriminate that way. When you've got each state deciding, then you've got marriages that are valid in some places and not in others. It's great that these guys can get married in NY, but if they come to Tennessee, they're just another bunch of homos who have no rights and their marriage is invalid. That's @#%^ed up.

Personally, I can't think of a good reason to go to a state where you're not wanted. Keep your money and life in places where you are. The others will wake up when they see themselves falling behind financially as a result. Or they won't and there'll be even less reason to ever go near the sh*t holes.

Quote:

It's great that these guys can get married in NY, but if they come to Tennessee, they're just another bunch of homos who have no rights and their marriage is invalid.

I'd hav edno trouble with a federal law requiring another state to honor a marriage from another state, so long as it wasn't because someone was taking up permanent residence ans was just visiting.

Personally, I can't think of a good reason to go to a state where you're not wanted. Keep your money and life in places where you are. The others will wake up when they see themselves falling behind financially as a result. Or they won't and there'll be even less reason to ever go near the sh*t holes.

Speaking from experience, you can't always pick and choose where you want to live. Believe me, my family didn't pick to move to Tennessee because of the Crystal Gale commercials. My dad had a choice: unemployment or to go TN and work at Saturn. Being a high school graduate who only knew how to do what he was already doing, we didn't have a ton of choices. And we weren't wanted in TN, let me tell you. "Yankee, go home," was a pretty frequent phrase. One kid said to me, "Do you know the difference between a Yankee and a **** Yankee? **** Yankees don't leave." Everyone else on the bus thought it was hilarious, at least.

I agree with you in theory, but in practice... well.

Uglysasquatch wrote:

Quote:

It's great that these guys can get married in NY, but if they come to Tennessee, they're just another bunch of homos who have no rights and their marriage is invalid.

I'd have no trouble with a federal law requiring another state to honor a marriage from another state, so long as it wasn't because someone was taking up permanent residence and was just visiting.

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean about just visiting vs. taking up permanent residence. It seems to me that each state should recognize another state's legal marriages, no matter the reason that the couple is in that state.

I'd have no trouble with a federal law requiring another state to honor a marriage from another state, so long as it wasn't because someone was taking up permanent residence ans was just visiting.

The Full Faith & Credit Clause of the US Constitution is supposed to require that states honor each other's contracts (among other things) but the Defense of Marriage Act states that states are not required to honor one another's marriage agreements. The constitutionality of this is currently being fought in the courts.

And we weren't wanted in TN, let me tell you. "Yankee, go home," was a pretty frequent phrase. One kid said to me, "Do you know the difference between a Yankee and a **** Yankee? **** Yankees don't leave." Everyone else on the bus thought it was hilarious, at least.

I agree with you in theory, but in practice... well.

See what I mean about a state like that becoming less and less appealing and falling behind others financially?

Quote:

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean about just visiting vs. taking up permanent residence. It seems to me that each state should recognize another state's legal marriages, no matter the reason that the couple is in that state.

I disagree. If I'm *** and living in TN, I can go to another state and get married to my girlyman, come home and now TN has to recognize my marriage. So, what if I want to marry someone 15 and that's legal in one state. Should we make all other states recognize my pedo habits?

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean about just visiting vs. taking up permanent residence. It seems to me that each state should recognize another state's legal marriages, no matter the reason that the couple is in that state.

I disagree. If I'm *** and living in TN, I can go to another state and get married to my girlyman, come home and now TN has to recognize my marriage. So, what if I want to marry someone 15 and that's legal in one state. Should we make all other states recognize my @#%^ habits?

But that IS how it works with other marriages. If I want to marry my first cousin, I can go to one of the states that allows it (such as Tennessee as it turns out), get married, and then move back home and our marriage will be recognized as valid. In South Carolina, females can marry at age 14 with parental consent. That marriage is legally valid in all 50 states.

The same works for the other side of marriage; Nevada was very popular to visit due to its lax divorce laws before "No Fault" divorces became common practice in the rest of the country.

As much as I would love federal mandates for same-*** marriage, I absolutely would not want the federal gov't to decide, right now, if they should or should not be allowed. That would SUCK.

I do, however, agree with Ugly. The federal gov't should demand a that all states recognize marriages from other states, as long as said people are not citizens. So, if I was in a *** marriage and went on a vacation to TN, my federal protections should remain (ability to visit my loved one in the hospital, for instance). But if I wanted to become a TN citizen, they shouldn't be required to.

Of course, I doubt we'd ever see this. And, naturally, I'd prefer a federal bill in favor of SSM.

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean about just visiting vs. taking up permanent residence. It seems to me that each state should recognize another state's legal marriages, no matter the reason that the couple is in that state.

I disagree. If I'm *** and living in TN, I can go to another state and get married to my girlyman, come home and now TN has to recognize my marriage. So, what if I want to marry someone 15 and that's legal in one state. Should we make all other states recognize my @#%^ habits?

Ah, I see what you mean. Ok, I don't disagree with you completely, then. I thought you meant --

No, wait. What I thought you meant actually doesn't make any sense, so never mind...

When is it ok for the federal government to do that, and when isn't it? I think it's better for each state to decide it, and once there's a majority of states already allowing something, then bring it up federally. One case to rule them all though is kinda of dangerous.

Personally, I think it should be the same across the board, and the states shouldn't be allowed to discriminate that way. When you've got each state deciding, then you've got marriages that are valid in some places and not in others. It's great that these guys can get married in NY, but if they come to Tennessee, they're just another bunch of homos who have no rights and their marriage is invalid. That's @#%^ed up.

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean about just visiting vs. taking up permanent residence. It seems to me that each state should recognize another state's legal marriages, no matter the reason that the couple is in that state.

I disagree. If I'm *** and living in TN, I can go to another state and get married to my girlyman, come home and now TN has to recognize my marriage. So, what if I want to marry someone 15 and that's legal in one state. Should we make all other states recognize my @#%^ habits?

But that IS how it works with other marriages. If I want to marry my first cousin, I can go to one of the states that allows it (such as Tennessee as it turns out), get married, and then move back home and our marriage will be recognized as valid. In South Carolina, females can marry at age 14 with parental consent. That marriage is legally valid in all 50 states.

The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't. Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy. The "public policy doctrine," almost as old as this country's legal system, has been applied to foreign marriages between first cousins, persons too recently divorced, persons of different races, and persons under the age of consent. The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition. Court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit but historically very little interstate recognition has been given to licenses.

The full faith and credit clause primarily deals with court rulings, not licenses. So if I sue you, I can collect even if you move to another state. If I'm awarded custody of our children, I can get them back even if you are in another state. If you owe me money, etc... Some leeway is given, but when you move to another state, you are expected to obtain a drivers license issued from that state in a reasonable period of time (and register your car locally).

It's completely false to argue that the clause mandates that every single state status or condition must be recognized everywhere else. Try cashing in food stamps from one state in another sometime and see how that works. Or use your library card in another county sometime. Shockingly, every single document, status, license, etc does *not* translate across various legal boundaries and have never done so.

It's completely false to argue that the clause mandates that every single state status or condition must be recognized everywhere else. Try cashing in food stamps from one state in another sometime and see how that works. Or use your library card in another county sometime. Shockingly, every single document, status, license, etc does *not* translate across various legal boundaries and have never done so.

So someone getting married in Alaska, has to get a new marriage license when they move to Michigan?

The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't. Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy. The "public policy doctrine," almost as old as this country's legal system, has been applied to foreign marriages between first cousins, persons too recently divorced, persons of different races, and persons under the age of consent. The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition. Court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit but historically very little interstate recognition has been given to licenses.

The full faith and credit clause primarily deals with court rulings, not licenses. So if I sue you, I can collect even if you move to another state. If I'm awarded custody of our children, I can get them back even if you are in another state. If you owe me money, etc... Some leeway is given, but when you move to another state, you are expected to obtain a drivers license issued from that state in a reasonable period of time (and register your car locally).

It's completely false to argue that the clause mandates that every single state status or condition must be recognized everywhere else. Try cashing in food stamps from one state in another sometime and see how that works. Or use your library card in another county sometime. Shockingly, every single document, status, license, etc does *not* translate across various legal boundaries and have never done so.

So what you're saying is, if I move to another state with my husband, we have to get married there or they won't recognize it...? And someone can marry someone in Idaho even if they're married to someone else in Wisconsin because Idaho doesn't recognize their WI marriage...?

I'll have to tell my mother that she wasted money getting a divorce in Tennessee from the man she married in Michigan. Apparently all she had to do was leave the state.

It's completely false to argue that the clause mandates that every single state status or condition must be recognized everywhere else. Try cashing in food stamps from one state in another sometime and see how that works. Or use your library card in another county sometime. Shockingly, every single document, status, license, etc does *not* translate across various legal boundaries and have never done so.

So someone getting married in Alaska, has to get a new marriage license when they move to Michigan?

If their marriage violates the marriage laws of Michigan, then it's not valid. So if it's legal to marry your first cousin in Alaska, and you move to Michigan where it's not, guess what? You aren't legally married in Michigan. This is nothing new.

More correctly: The state of Michigan will not recognize your marriage. Which isn't the same thing. You're still "married", your marriage just isn't going to qualify you for anything in the State of Michigan. Nothing is taken away from you though. You just aren't given anything.

The full faith and credit clause primarily deals with court rulings, not licenses.

That's not "technically true" either, as the author of your column admits in other interviews:

Washington Post wrote:

Washington, D.C.: Does the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution really apply to a marriage in Massachusetts being recognized in Arizona, for example?

Lea Brilmayer: Well, the clause does apply because the wording is "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of another state.

However, as my article points out, that is not the same thing as saying automatic, one hundred percent recognition. Licenses, legislation, contracts, and other legal relationships have never been given as much credit as the judicial decisions of other states.

So it's still an untested legal question. DOMA was enacted partially to try to avoid a court case where it was given strict scrutiny and potentially found that "the clause does apply" to a full extent.

Actually, after responding to gbaji, I googled a little and read where other states had to recognize interracial marraiges not because of full faith & credit, but because of the Equal Protections Act. So maybe he has something there after all.

But someone must've been worried that it wouldn't be enough, or DOMA wouldn't exist...

But for some opponents of same-*** marriage, even the federal and state DOMAs are not reassurance enough. Some of these people worry that the federal law may someday be invalidated as inconsistent with the full faith and credit clause. That's why they seek an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But the law is probably not unconstitutional. (Granted, that is not a very high recommendation.) Even if constitutional, it is a silly law, motivated by nothing but political grandstanding.

She has an opinion on it, and she's certainly qualified to have one, but her opinion is hardly the final word.

Belkira wrote:

Actually, after responding to gbaji, I googled a little and read where other states had to recognize interracial marraiges not because of full faith & credit, but because of the Equal Protections Act.

Equal Protection is another area DOMA is being attacked from, as well as the Tenth Amendment, from which states have the authority to determine who is married (in regards to receiving federal benefits).

Some law blog regarding the Mass. DOMA decision wrote:

The Judge then merged the Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause challenges - - - "two sides of the same coin" - - - although specifically discussing and applying the classic spending clause case of South Dakota v. Dole. The Judge found that DOMA "plainly intrudes on a core area of state sovereignty—the ability to define the marital status of its citizens," and applied First Circuit precedent regarding the test for a Tenth Amendment analysis [...] Judge Tauro outlined the plaintiffs arguments that the classification should merit strict scrutiny under equal protection clause doctrine, but held that the court “need not address these arguments, however, because DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster even under the highly deferential rational basis test,” because “there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship” between DOMA and a legitimate government objective, and that therefore DOMA violates the core constitutional principles of equal protection.

Edit: I will happily admit though that I overstated the current effect of the Full Faith & Credit Clause in regards to marriage.

Except your marriage, of course. And any protections that affords (like not being forced to testify against one another).

Marriage is not the same as state recognition of marriage. Surely you don't assume that a relationship isn't "real" unless the government comes along and puts a stamp on a piece of paper, do you?

The 5th amendment thing is the only thing I'm aware of that is an actual right which hinges on marriage. Um... I'm also reasonably certain that since this is a judicial issue, that 99.99999999% of judges will apply the same rules to domestic partnerships as they would to a licensed marriage. Common law marriages have existed longer than state issued marriage licenses (and were much more common until just the last century or so), yet somehow the courts managed to deal with this anyway.

Maybe if some people weren't so willing to let the state tell them how to live their lives, this wouldn't be an issue?

#51gbaji,
Posted:Jun 27 2011 at 1:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Really? The state says "In order to be married, you have to do X, Y, and Z, and comply with these set of contractual agreements, and jump through these hoops", and you don't see that as the state telling people how to live their lives? You honestly don't realize that for thousands of years people got married without any state involvement at all? It's only been in the past century or so that anyone but the wealthy/nobility ever involved government in their marriages.